The Future of Local Government’s
Relationship with VICSES
Municipal Association of Victoria
Position Paper
November 2011
© Copyright Municipal Association of Victoria, 2011
The Municipal Association of Victoria is the owner of the copyright in this publication.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means
without the prior permission in writing from the Municipal Association of Victoria.
All requests to reproduce, store or transmit material contained in the publication should be
addressed to Claire Dunn, cdunn@mav.asn.au.
“The future of local government’s relationship with VICSES – position paper” has been prepared
by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) after discussion with member councils.
Introduction
On 27 July 2011, the MAV hosted a meeting with councils to discuss local government’s
relationship with the Victoria State Emergency Service (VICSES). Two outcomes were sought
from the meeting:
i.
A statement about local government’s future relationship with local VICSES units;
ii.
A position on local government’s relationship with VICSES more broadly, particularly
in relation to VICSES’s responsibilities under section 5 of the Victoria State
Emergency Service Act 2005.
This paper sets out the positions agreed at the 27 July meeting and incorporates subsequent
feedback received from the sector following circulation of the draft position paper to all
councils.
The MAV used this paper to help inform our response to the Green Paper – Towards a Safer
and More Disaster Resilient Victoria (September 2011). This paper will also be used to
advocate for change in accordance with the position detailed on the following pages.
Background
The Victoria State Emergency Service (VICSES) started in 1950 as the Victoria Civil Defence
Organisation. Originally established to act as a volunteer based agency that could be quickly
activated in the event of war, in the 1960s its role was enhanced to include management of
peacetime disasters.
From 1961 to 1972 efforts were made to form a Civil Defence Unit in each municipality. By
1972 about 100 voluntary municipal units had been formed.
In 1975, the Victoria Civil Defence Organisation was renamed the Victoria State Emergency
Service in conformity with the other states. The formal re-establishment of VICSES as a
general emergency management agency was completed with the passage of the Victoria
State Emergency Service Act 1981.
On 1 November 2005, VICSES was made a statutory authority by the Victoria State
Emergency Service Act 2005.
VICSES today is governed by a Board that is accountable to the Minister for Police and
Emergency Services. The current VICSES network is divided into six regions, each with its
own staff. Throughout Victoria there are more than 5500 VICSES volunteers based at 150
municipal VICSES units.
Outcome 1: Local government’s future relationship with local VICSES units
The relationship between VICSES units and councils has changed
As demands on both VICSES and local government services have grown and changed, local
councils have increasingly found themselves unable to meet the service needs of their local
VICSES units. Indeed councils struggle to adequately resource their own expanding
emergency management responsibilities, let alone those of other agencies. As VICSES units
have matured in their service delivery role, so should the business model of VICSES and the
management of its units. Local government’s relationship with VICSES should be the same as
it is with other stand-alone agencies, such as the CFA and Ambulance Victoria, with local
government not relied upon to fund local units beyond voluntarily providing grants and
donations as it does to other local community service organisations.
The way VICSES units are funded is no longer appropriate
The Victoria State Emergency Service Act 2005 and the Emergency Management Act 1986
are silent on the financing of VICSES and of VICSES units. The current situation, whereby
municipalities are expected to match the funding contribution made by the State for local
VICSES units, is only the latest phase in a journey that has seen funding of the Service
variously involve all three levels of government, with sponsorship from the private sector
sometimes thrown into the mix.
Funding of the provision, maintenance and insurance of VICSES unit accommodation,
vehicles and equipment, varies from municipality to municipality, unit to unit. Some VICSES
units are housed in council buildings, others are not. Some councils provide in-kind support in
the form of building and vehicle maintenance, utilities, vehicle registration etc, others do not.
In the past, units had a more formal day to day link with the municipality. Despite having
always been a primary funder of VICSES units, today councils do not exercise any control (nor
do they have the desire to) over the units’ actions beyond their limited powers as landlord
where the units are housed in council buildings or on council land. Councils report variable
levels of collaboration during events and in regards to their community education role, and
also real variation in how VICSES officers and volunteers act and value the relationship with
the municipality as a landlord and provider.
The housing of units in municipal owned facilities presents a range of operational and health
and safety risks to both the municipality and the volunteers. Many municipalities are unable to
support the capital expenditure to upgrade facilities, and this exposes both parties to
unacceptable risks. Furthermore where facilities are shared there is significant difficulty in
ensuring both parties are able to comply with a shared workplace environment. The differing
activities and roles of municipal employees and unit volunteers mean the workplace is often
trying to meet conflicting demands in an unrealistic arrangement. VICSES units and their
volunteers need facilities to operate unencumbered by a municipal workplace, and ultimately
VICSES should be responsible for this provision.
The vehicular fleet operated by VICSES units is also variable. The mixture of ownership is not
conducive to consistency of service delivery or in accordance with community risk. In addition,
variations in ownership mean inevitable variations in standards of maintenance and health
and safety, further exposing all parties to unnecessary risk.
This situation is hardly fitting for an agency charged with such critical emergency management
responsibilities, nor is it sustainable. It treats the volunteers of VICSES units in a different way
to volunteers from other emergency service organisations, particularly fire and ambulance.
The role of VICSES has grown such that it needs to be recognized, resourced and managed
as a State agency. There needs to be consistency in capacity, equipment and training across
the state.
VICSES units are place based historically and not according to risk
In part a legacy of council amalgamation, there is a marked inequity in terms of the distribution
of SES local units across the state, with the number of units located within municipalities
ranging from eight to zero. This is further complicated by the fact that VICSES boundaries,
unlike police districts, do not align with municipal borders.
In light of its very important role as an emergency management control agency, local
government would support an approach whereby VICSES undertake a risk-based assessment
of where VICSES units should be located and adopt a state-wide risk-based funding model for
the units. VICSES needs to transition to a model comparable to that of other emergency
services such as the CFA and Victoria Police.
Local government is committed to assisting VICSES and VICSES units to transition to a
new model
Municipalities are very concerned that VICSES units remain viable through any process of
transition. Councils have supported and developed strong partnerships with local VICSES
units over a long period and have no interest in severing this relationship. Rather local
government wants to see the Service transition to a model where it is best able to deliver what
is expected of it as an emergency management control agency.
It is the view of local government that the current model is holding the development of VICSES
back, and that a transition to an independent risk-based model can be achieved over time.
There are a range of transitional arrangements that could be implemented to ensure a smooth
change. Where units are housed on council land or in council buildings, council could seek to
support their transition through MoUs and lease agreements. Progressive arrangements could
also be implemented to transition fleet ownership and management.
An equitable and consistent funding model would need to be developed for VICSES units so
that the transition can be financially viable and a balanced approach is achieved for all unit
funding across the state. Funding can be progressively transferred over a reasonable period
in accordance with an agreed model.
Outcome 2: Local government’s relationship with VICSES more broadly, and VICSES’s
responsibilities under section 5 of the Victoria State Emergency Services Act
Section 5(1)(i) of the Victoria State Emergency Service Act 2005 provides that, in relation to
emergency management planning, one of the functions of VICSES is `assisting municipal
councils in relation to the performance and exercise of their duties and responsibilities under
the Emergency Management Act 1986.’ This provision would suggest that VICSES has a
greater responsibility to assist municipalities than other key emergency management
agencies, yet through no fault of VICSES, this service provision is variable and not up to
expectations. VICSES simply does not have the capacity to meet this function.
In some municipalities councils report that emergency management knowledge within local
government outstrips that found within VICSES. Municipalities may be better served by a
more general approach in support of emergency management planning. In an integrated
emergency management planning framework, a number of agencies, including VICSES,
should have a duty to be engaged and assist in emergency management planning at the local
level. In this way a true all agencies, all hazards approach could be achieved.
There is a disconnect between the control agency role of VICSES and the planning support
function. This is exacerbated by the differences in the roles of VICSES and the local units in
local level planning. Local units seem to be more active in the planning for those hazards for
which they are the control agency and have greatest expertise. VICSES support from the
regional level has both a generic and hazard based approach. However assessment of all
risks and accountability for the Municipal Emergency Management Plan, and any hazard
specific sub-plans, still falls to the municipality. There have been flood incidents where
councils have found themselves leading planning of the response and providing guidance to
VICSES, rather than VICSES fulfilling the control agency role. It is unacceptable for VICSES
not to have the technical knowledge or capacity to lead planning for events for which it is the
control agency.
It should be noted that this position paper has been prepared with the understanding that the
VICSES audit role prescribed in s.5(1)(ii) of the Act is to be moved to the Office of the
Emergency Services Commissioner in the very near future. The tensions that arise from one
agency being charged with assisting in the preparation of a plan that they are also responsible
for auditing have therefore not been discussed in this paper. Suffice to say councils support
the audit role being moved to another authority.
Municipalities value the specialist support base that is envisaged under the Act. To achieve
effective and consistent emergency management planning there is a need for local referral to
an expert source to ensure consistency of approach to managing risk and preparing plans.
For VICSES to be that source a range of changes need to be implemented, including
increasing capacity and expertise in an all hazards context. Municipalities continually
emphasise that it is not a willingness to participate that is lacking. Whether this role continues
to be sourced from VICSES or another model is preferred, VICSES should not be seen to fail
simply because it is not resourced for the responsibility prescribed under the Act.
Conclusion
Councils very much value and appreciate the work VICSES units do across the state. The role
of VICSES is considered of high importance and councils are grateful for the contribution
played by the members of local VICSES units in enhancing the safety of local residents. Farremoved from its roots as a civil defence organisation, VICSES is an emergency response
agency like CFA and MFB, with legislation recognising it in its own right.
As VICSES has matured into a statutory authority, local government firmly believes it is
neither appropriate nor sustainable for local VICSES units to depend on councils for funding
or other in-kind support. Faced with increasing demands on their own services and limited
resources, councils are simply unable to meet the needs and asks of local units. The lack of a
stable funding model for local units over many years has led to a range of ad hoc and
unsustainable arrangements for the provision of accommodation, vehicles and equipment.
This is hardly fitting for an agency charged with such critical emergency response
responsibilities.
Councils believe it is imperative that the funding for VICSES units transitions to a model that
will best enable the units to operate effectively in line with their prescribed duties under
legislation and emergency management plans. To support this transition municipalities are
keen to develop plans and arrangements that ensure local units are not disadvantaged.
Ongoing resourcing and support for units needs to move from a historical place-based context
to a risk-based state-wide model, and VICSES boundaries need to align with other
jurisdictional boundaries.
In respect of the duties prescribed in section 5 of the Victoria State Emergency Services Act
2005, local government’s experience generally is that VICSES simply does not have sufficient
resources to provide this assistance. Either VICSES needs to be provided with the necessary
resources or the role should be allocated to a different authority. A different expert referral
model may be more appropriate to guide and support local level planning, enabling councils to
more actively engage, seek specialist advice and emergency management planning support
from VICSES for those specific hazards that VICSES is the control agency.